Menu
blogid : 8093 postid : 358

Judge Ko Manhani Notice

VISION FOR ALL
VISION FOR ALL
  • 270 Posts
  • 28 Comments

To
Hon’ble Justice SN Jha
The Chairperson
Bihar Human Rights Commission
Patna
Date:-
Sub:-Contempt Notice under article 21 of Indian constitution-Regarding
Ref:-File No-3687/11 ,Order of the commission of dated:-31.10.2012
Sir
I would like to say before you that you have closed my file baselessly on 31.10.2012.
A copy of the order of the BHRC of dated:-31.10.2012 is appended under reference.
In this regard,i have many evidences to say that you have humiliated my right to life.
If this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear in the nature of disciplinary measure then
1. Why principal forced my father to write application for TC to protect himself,
2.why princpal manufactured fake documents in back date to protect himself and show me wrong externally.
I am saying both above because there is no clarification of this evidence in your order whether my father was forced to write application or not and whether principal has manufactured fake documents against me or not after my approaching to the commission.If i was wrong then why principal forced my father to write application for TC and manufactured fake documents against me.
3.Overall,this is the humiliation of law to say that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.In our law,there is no place of assuming,supposing.Law is not mathematics where everything is proved by assuming,suppossing,seeming,appearing.In law,everything has to be proved.So without proving that i was expelled or not and if i was expelled then by proving this that this was disciplinary action-only then the case can be closed.By saying,this would appear to be in the without following law and order.In law and order,everything is proved first then appeared.

4.No medical test happened which i demanded and this is legal provision as well as guidelines of National Human Rights Commission
5.That child said nothing against me in his written statement of dated:-22.9.2011 which can prove unnatural offence.But the commission was going through the complaints of that mother which involve a lot of contradictory statements,don’t match to the statement of her son,which are fake,manufactured later in back date by the principal.
6.Not a single student has claimed me and presented as an eye-witness.Only sleepings are narrated as the other students’s version.
7.I was not given the opportunity to prove all documents against me manufactured,fake,baseless,fabricated and contradictory but i demanded this from the commission.As the commission has written that i have evidence against the manufacturing of these documents and i have submitted papers in this regard .But nothing is written what was proved.This proves,i was not given the opportunity to prove these documents fake.Moreover,the commission sent me only the 5-paged report of principal and i received all complaints against me by RTI sent to the principal.So this was left to submit more responses against those complaints which are fake.I had prepared my responses but the commission was not liking to persue upon the matter by saying sometimes that my matter doesn’t relate to human rights and sometimes saying that this is not court.After listening my words against these documents,the commission said me that the commission will think upon my matter whether there will be further persuing or not.I was in the sense that if there will be further persuing then i will submit my more responses but the commission closed the case.
In this regard,following points may be noted:-
1.The complaint written in the name of that child is written by the brother of him and his sign is not present.Principal has signed on 20.9.2011 but the complaint is done as the enclosure of PK Acharya on 22.9.2011.
2.There is no sign of the principal in complaint done to the principal by the mother of the boy of dated:-22.8.2011.
3.The complaint done by the mother of the boy to the District Magistrate,Samastipur is of dated:-23.9.2011 but the complainant has signed on 23.8.2011.The complaint is sealed and application No. is given to this complaint on 26.9.2011 but the complaint is sealed and application No. is given on the day of complaining.So this must had to be sealed and application No had to be given on 23.9.2011.
4.The complaint done the mother of the boy to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur, is of 23.9.2011. In the complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate,no date,case no and seal is present.The complaint is signed by the applicant on 23.9.2011 but signed by an official on dated:-21.9.2011-two days before.
5.The complaint of Ghan Shyam[GS] Chaudhary is of dated:-24.8.2011.On the date of my absconding.The complaint was Signed by GS Chaudhary on 23.8.2011 and this is made 24.8.2011 by any other.This point may be noted also that the complaint of GS Chaudhary is signed by the principal on 24.8.2011 but he was not present in school on 24.8.2011.
6.The complaint of PK Acharya is of 22.9.2011 but no sign of principal is present in the complaint.

Besides these,statements in one complaint for a particular incident don’t match to the statements in all others complaints for the same incident.It’s contradictory.

8.I was not given the opportunity to cross question with my accussed which i demanded.
9.No enquiry conducted which i demanded.In my response which the commission has explained,i have demanded to enquiry Sanjeev Suman,his elder Sanjeet Kashyap,his roommates who have given statements before principal in child friendly environment and all others who can be anyhow related.But no enquiry conducted.
10.Even my response was not studied.Only the response of that principal was read before my naked eyes.As the commission has said in the order that my matter involves many disputed questions.But this is not said what disputed questions my matter involve and what disputed questions prove.This proves,my response is not studied.In my response,only this was studied which is on front in first page that my matter is under the consideration of National Human Rights Commission also.The commission has only said in his order that i have submitted that my father was forced to write application.But my father has submitted application that he was forced and which is proved how he was forced and the application is enclosed with my response.This means,the commission didn’t read the application of my father and only listened what i said before the commission.This is possible only when the commission doesn’t read my response.No enquiry is conducted,no medical test of victim and accused happened,no my medical report considered where i am shown fit,no call and emails details record traced,my other objection against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc are not discussed in the order of the commission. Faults within documents against me were not observed,i was trapped after complaining against principal and after 6 months and mostly documents against me are also of after complaining against principal and after 6 months -which were not observed.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused.
These all were not considered/observed/demand not granted because my response was not studied.
11.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.If this would be considered then commission would opt the policy of proving everything and then final decision would be given as the commission not did.
12.No call details record,email details record were observed which i have explained in my response and which my prove helpful to prove principal wrong.The commission didn’t read my response so how these details would be observed.
13.This fact was not considered that mostly documents against me are manufactured in the date of Sept 2011-after complaining against principal and after 6 months.Faults related to date,sign,seal,writing in past form instead of present,writing by a person other than complainant etc were not observed which all documents involve.One document is prepared on the date of my going to Delhi and one is of 2 days before of this incident.So these are also of after 5 months.
14.If this is assumed that i was expelled then this is done also after complaining against principal and after 6 months.I stated before the commission that i was expelled after 6 months and after complaining against principal.So how this was disciplinary action.
15.There were many complaints against me including complaints to DM and SDM but not a single action was taken against me [as principal wrote in his report] .So this was evident that these are manufactured when i complained against principal to the commission because TC had been issued to me that time and i was no more in school so no action was taken.
16.I had no more health related problem which principal explained.My medical report clears this.But the commission went alongwith statement of principal.
17.The commission didn’t obseve my other allegations against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc.
18.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.
19.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused.
20.The commission didn’t observe this fact that principal has manufactured fake documents against me as the complaint done to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.I gave evidences but commission didn’t observe.The reply of RTI application and Awamanana Notice received from DM office clearly proves that the complaint is fake.Principal has managed with some officers of collectorate-this is evident by the response of RTI and Awamanana.In spite of this,the commission didn’t consider.
21.This point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the commission ] but complaints of that mother to SDM and DM are of dated:-23.9.2011 ,that child and PK Acharya are of dated:-22.9.2011.By the phone recording of principal,evidence through media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record etc,this is evident that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.
Sir
By the all above evidences,this is cleared that you have humiliated my right to life by closing the file baselessly.

Therefore,you are requested to response within 3 weeks.
Thanking You
Yours
Rahul Kumar
File No-3687/11
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill+Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Distt-Samastipur
PIN-848207
Encl:- As Above

To
The Chief Justice
The High Court Of Patna
Patna
Date:-
Sub:- Writ Petition against the verdict of the Bihar State Human Rights Commission of dated:-31.10.2012-Regarding
Ref:- Complaint against the principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur done to Bihar Human Rights Commission [File No-3687/11 assigned by the BHRC]
Sir
With reference to my subject,i would like to state before you that the Bihar State Human Rights Commission has closed my case by error without giving any baseful decision on 31.10.2012.The commission was prejudiced too.
1.My matter is as under:-
I was working against corruption.So when i entered in eleventh,principal started to trouble me by always saying he would expell me.For example:-i wanted to opt Humanities and principal said that he would expell me if i would opt humanities[ due to a philosophical article titled VISION 2047 and working against corruption].Principal had already kept me trapping in a very wrong objection[physical relationship] with a junior boy named Sanjeev Suman who was my friend] but i was saying to justify and he never justified.Principal never justified in this view that i would be bound to take TC due to that objection.I was living in tension due to these aforesaid reasons and principal again said that if i would be in tension,he would expell me.Anyhow,anyway,he wanted to not see in the school.
Such reasons bound me to complain against principal to NVS,Headquarter by running away (absconding)from the school without taking permission.In revenge to this,principal trapped me with that boy named Sanjeev Suman as i complained against him.
A copy of my complaint done to the Human Rights Commission is appended under reference.
-Annexure 1
Now he is saying,he didn’t expell me in one hand as he has forced my father to wtite application of TC.On the other hand,he has kept a lot of fake documents[complaints ] to show that i was doing wrong .He has done both above also to protect himself as he did wrong.Such documents are artificially prepared by principal after my approaching to the commission.I was nothing wrong.Even that boy was helping me in my project.

The order of the commission is as under:-
The commission has stated that i accused principal that he allegedly expelled me.But the princpal has shown application that my father has given the application of TC.In his order this is written,I have submitted that my father was forced to write application.Again,this is written in the order that i have objected principal that he has manufactured fake documents after my approaching to the commission and i have evidence to prove my innocence.I have filed papers in this regard as the commission has written.
Again in the order,this is written that on perusal of documets it appears to the commission that matter involves disputed questions.
Without going through evidences and clarification,again this is stated that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.Without proving whether my father was forced to write application or not,whether fake documents are manufactured or not,what disputed questions my matter involve,how this can be said that if this is assumed i was expelled then this action would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.In this view of matter,the commission has closed my case by saying that the commission is not inclined to make any kind of intervention in the matter.
But this must be noted against this policy of the commission that there is no discussion of any evidence and clarification like whether principal forced to write or not,whether principal has manufactured documents against me or not,what disputed questions involve my matter.
If i was expelled then this was disciplinary matter then 1. why principal forced my father to write application to protect himself,2.why princpal manufactured fake documents in back date to protect himself and show me wrong externally.
This proves,the commission has given decision by error as the commission didn’t consider the base of decision but gave decision.If this would be proved that the principal has forced my father to write application of TC and he has manufactured fake documents against me,then this would be cleared that if i was expelled then principal did wrong as he forced my father to write application of TC and manufactured fake documents to protect himself,show me wrong etc . The commission was prejudiced too.
3.Overall,this is the humiliation of law to say that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear to be in the nature of disciplinary measure.In our law,there is no place of assuming,supposing.Law is not mathematics where everything is proved by assuming,suppossing,seeming,appearing.In law,everything has to be proved.So without proving that i was expelled or not and if i was expelled then by proving this that this was disciplinary action-only then the case can be closed.By saying,this would appear to be in the without following law and order.In law and order,everything is proved first then appeared.

4.No medical test happened which i demanded and this is legal provision as well as guidelines of National Human Rights Commission
5.That child said nothing against me in his written statement of dated:-22.9.2011 which can prove unnatural offence.But the commission was going through the complaints of that mother which involve a lot of contradictory statements,don’t match to the statement of her son,which are fake,manufactured later in back date by the principal.
6.Not a single student has claimed me and presented as an eye-witness.Only sleepings are narrated as the other students’s version.
7.I was not given the opportunity to prove all documents against me manufactured,fake,baseless,fabricated and contradictory but i demanded this from the commission.As the commission has written that i have evidence against the manufacturing of these documents and i have submitted papers in this regard .But nothing is written what was proved.This proves,i was not given the opportunity to prove these documents fake.Moreover,the commission sent me only the 5-paged report of principal and i received all complaints against me by RTI sent to the principal.So this was left to submit more responses against those complaints which are fake.I had prepared my responses but the commission was not liking to persue upon the matter by saying sometimes that my matter doesn’t relate to human rights and sometimes saying that this is not court.After listening my words against these documents,the commission said me that the commission will think upon my matter whether there will be further persuing or not.I was in the sense that if there will be further persuing then i will submit my more responses but the commission closed the case.
In this regard,following points may be noted:-
1.The complaint written in the name of that child is written by the brother of him and his sign is not present.Principal has signed on 20.9.2011 but the complaint is done as the enclosure of PK Acharya on 22.9.2011.
2.There is no sign of the principal in complaint done to the principal by the mother of the boy of dated:-22.8.2011.
3.The complaint done by the mother of the boy to the District Magistrate,Samastipur is of dated:-23.9.2011 but the complainant has signed on 23.8.2011.The complaint is sealed and application No. is given to this complaint on 26.9.2011 but the complaint is sealed and application No. is given on the day of complaining.So this must had to be sealed and application No had to be given on 23.9.2011.
4.The complaint done the mother of the boy to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Samastipur, is of 23.9.2011. In the complaint to Sub-Divisional Magistrate,no date,case no and seal is present.The complaint is signed by the applicant on 23.9.2011 but signed by an official on dated:-21.9.2011-two days before.
5.The complaint of Ghan Shyam[GS] Chaudhary is of dated:-24.8.2011.On the date of my absconding.The complaint was Signed by GS Chaudhary on 23.8.2011 and this is made 24.8.2011 by any other.This point may be noted also that the complaint of GS Chaudhary is signed by the principal on 24.8.2011 but he was not present in school on 24.8.2011.
6.The complaint of PK Acharya is of 22.9.2011 but no sign of principal is present in the complaint.

Besides these,statements in one complaint for a particular incident don’t match to the statements in all others complaints for the same incident.It’s contradictory.

8.I was not given the opportunity to cross question with my accussed which i demanded.
9.No enquiry conducted which i demanded.In my response which the commission has explained,i have demanded to enquiry Sanjeev Suman,his elder Sanjeet Kashyap,his roommates who have given statements before principal in child friendly environment and all others who can be anyhow related.But no enquiry conducted.
10.Even my response was not studied.Only the response of that principal was read before my naked eyes.As the commission has said in the order that my matter involves many disputed questions.But this is not said what disputed questions my matter involve and what disputed questions prove.This proves,my response is not studied.In my response,only this was studied which is on front in first page that my matter is under the consideration of National Human Rights Commission also.The commission has only said in his order that i have submitted that my father was forced to write application.But my father has submitted application that he was forced and which is proved how he was forced and the application is enclosed with my response.This means,the commission didn’t read the application of my father and only listened what i said before the commission.This is possible only when the commission doesn’t read my response.No enquiry is conducted,no medical test of victim and accused happened,no my medical report considered where i am shown fit,no call and emails details record traced,my other objection against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc are not discussed in the order of the commission. Faults within documents against me were not observed,i was trapped after complaining against principal and after 6 months and mostly documents against me are also of after complaining against principal and after 6 months -which were not observed.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused.
These all were not considered/observed/demand not granted because my response was not studied.
11.My evidences like all recordings of principal,statements of students in my favour were not considered by the commission.If this would be considered then commission would opt the policy of proving everything and then final decision would be given as the commission not did.
12.No call details record,email details record were observed which i have explained in my response and which my prove helpful to prove principal wrong.The commission didn’t read my response so how these details would be observed.
13.This fact was not considered that mostly documents against me are manufactured in the date of Sept 2011-after complaining against principal and after 6 months.Faults related to date,sign,seal,writing in past form instead of present,writing by a person other than complainant etc were not observed which all documents involve.One document is prepared on the date of my going to Delhi and one is of 2 days before of this incident.So these are also of after 5 months.
14.If this is assumed that i was expelled then this is done also after complaining against principal and after 6 months.I stated before the commission that i was expelled after 6 months and after complaining against principal.So how this was disciplinary action.
15.There were many complaints against me including complaints to DM and SDM but not a single action was taken against me [as principal wrote in his report] .So this was evident that these are manufactured when i complained against principal to the commission because TC had been issued to me that time and i was no more in school so no action was taken.
16.I had no more health related problem which principal explained.My medical report clears this.But the commission went alongwith statement of principal.
17.The commission didn’t obseve my other allegations against principal like refusing to allot humanities due to an article by imposing condition of expulsion,imposing condition of expulsion in the case of living in tension,what principal had problems from me as i was working against corruption,what principal mistreated on the day of trapping,why i complained against principal to his headquarter etc,etc.
18.The commission didn’t observe the fact that i had a philosophical objective behind living with that child but i was trapped.
19.The commission didn’t observe this fact that i myself has been sexually assaulted by my one relative but i was trapped with a boy becuase who was not my relative and belonged to different and upper caste in the view of my accused.
20.The commission didn’t observe this fact that principal has manufactured fake documents against me as the complaint done to District Magistrate,Samastipur and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Dalsingsarai,Dt-Samastipur.I gave evidences but commission didn’t observe.The reply of RTI application and Awamanana Notice received from DM office clearly proves that the complaint is fake.Principal has managed with some officers of collectorate-this is evident by the response of RTI and Awamanana.In spite of this,the commission didn’t consider.
21.This point may be noted as the commission said that if this is assumed that i was expelled then this would appear in the nature of disciplinary measure that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011[which i have written in my complaint of dated:-19.12.2011 done to the commission ] but complaints of that mother to SDM and DM are of dated:-23.9.2011 ,that child and PK Acharya are of dated:-22.9.2011.By the phone recording of principal,evidence through media,statements of students,emails sent to the principal,call details record etc,this is evident that i was expelled on 14 Sept 2011.
22.The commission wanted to close case anyhow,anyway.So the commission started to say that my matter doesn’t belong to human rights.The commission changed pretext again and started to say that this is not court where i will prove and present witness.As the commission was saying wrong so nothing such is written in the order that the matter doesn’t relate to human rights and the commission is not appropriate place for proving and presenting witness.In stead of this the commission has issued order as stated above and closed my case anyhow,anyway.
In view of the all noted points,this can be said that the commission has done decision by mistaking and the commission was prejudiced too for 3 below reasons:-
1.In this view that the matter relates between two boys so something wrong was done.Unless why the matter between two boys were flashed and bombarded and why complaints were done against me by some people.So commission was prejudiced.
2.The commission neglected me as i am a boy.
3.In the view of the commission,my accused and opponents were teachers,principal,officers, mother etc and the commission went through such things that a mother can’t complain falsely ,a teacher and princpal can’t object forcely,an officer can’t help principal to manufacture documents against me.
That’s why the commission didn’t approach to the truth whether my father was forced or not,documents are manufactured or not and give decision baselessly.
Sir
By the all above noted evidences,this is cleared that the Bihar Human Rights Commission has verdicted by error and i am trapped forcely by the principal.The commission was prejudiced too as the matter relates between 2 boys so the commission understood me wrong baselessly and prejudicially without going through facts,evidences and clarification.This is evident,I am innocent and there was nothing relationship between myself and that child besides living for an ideological objective.This is also evident that principal has forced my father to write application of TC to protect himself and he has manufactured documents against me after my approaching to the BHRC to protect himself and show me wrong artificially…
Therefore,you are requested to accept my writ petition in view of all above evidences which i have presented and conduct hearing and take requisite actions.
You are specially requested to give me freedom from that objection.I have writ only for this purpose.
Thanking You
Yours
Rahul Kumar
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill+Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Distt-Samastipur
PIN-848207
Encl:- As Above

Tags:   

Read Comments

    Post a comment

    Leave a Reply